So projects that worked reasonably well and developed very fast, or even just somehow fast, are presented. Everybody agrees that's good and a success and better than if they were done slower; but so what?

Some are great major engineering projects, but in the context of extreme speed there is a world between a few weeks or even months, and more than 5 years, even if you compare the 5 years in question to project that are a parody in the other direction (yeah, a train project that is planned for 37 years looks ridiculous, but again so what? is it really because diva engineers want to spend all their careers doing "perfect" stuff and reject any deadline they are presented? doubtful)

Also, some are successful, but controversial (JS...); some I don't even know what to think about (is growing the population of a city by 22% in a year good?); some are just the work of geniuses.

And this is a mix of major physical infrastructure/engineering projects, projects for mass produced physical goods, and random software projects. Then suddenly the discussion focuses on physical infrastructure, ignoring all the other kind without even stating why.

This is also hard to contrast with the original article, because we don't know how many of them were mainly date driven. Probably not so much, in the sense that it would be retarded to insist on delivering something that cost a shitload of money to build at a completely arbitrary date without enough concern about the quality.

Too finish: some insane major infrastructure projects have been successful in the modern age: what comes to mind is for example the LHC, yes it took quite some time but it is probably somewhat more difficult to design than a random consumer electronic gadget? (is the story of the iPod that much spectacular? I found it quite common...)